Forum for residents of St Georges Park and Long Leys Road Lincoln

[Cllr Helen Heath]

Full council met last night following the site visit for councillors to Bakers Field to consider the application for permission to put a cemetery on the site. Following two days of warm sunny weather, councillors didn't get to see the problems with the rising springs and water run off that happens in bad weather. Plenty of youngsters were there riding horses, and a number of residents were also present, but were not permitted to lobby councillors.
Later at the Guildhall, the Development Control Manager put the case for the proposals, and advised on planning law. Then opponents and proponents had the opportunity to put their case. Tony Wilson spoke for the residents to a packed Guildhall, and spoke from the heart and with great conviction; I don't think anyone hearing what he had to say could fail to have been moved by it.
Then councillors had their debate. Two councillors declared an interest, and were not permitted to vote. One was Rick Metcalfe, the leader of the Labour opposition, who had co-authored the 'call in' of the proposals (on the grounds of inadequate consultation); the other was me, on the grounds that by working with residents and by submitting a letter outlining concerns, I could be deemed to have already made up my mind.
I spoke at length on the problems with drainage, in particular the run off into gardens and the Gospel Hall, the dangers of speeding traffic coming around the tight bend, and the future of the riding school. As the debate progressed, it was apparent that the motion was likely to be passed. It then remained just to get as many relevant conditions passed as possible.
I proposed the following conditions:
1) For the drains on Long Leys Rd to be cleared, and kept clear. This was rejected - the drains are the responsibility of the county, and therefore not a condition for the applicant.
2) An extra French drain on the south side of the site to keep the run off out of residents gardens - this was accepted.
3) The two other fields proposed for use by the riding school to have their fencing made secure, drainage improved, and fresh water supplies laid on. This was rejected as it is not a material consideration for planning.
4) Traffic calming measures on Long Leys Rd - Highways had already indicated that current provision is adequate and they would not expect any additional measures.
Another councillor proposed higher fences, and this was accepted.
I'm not surprised that the proposal was passed, but think the site is far from ideal. Only time will tell whether the measures they have proposed to deal with the drainage problems will prove adequate, and at least we got an extra french drain. I am most sorry that we didn't get any help for the riding school.

Cllr Helen Heath.

[iggy]

i ask the following points to Mr sedden as we know you read things posted on this site [please join and let us see your response] had to post on here as he will not return my post and can never get email to you]
1when is it starting to be built
2what will be the total cost to the tax payer
3can they afford to build it as the plan
4if not to the above plan will they have to go for planning again
5when will it be open
6why have they not followed the advice of the geo specialist who said the site should not be considered until there report is out in July
7why pay professianals if they know best
8how do cycles get to the site
9what about the unstable land above the site[ you failed to tell them about this ] extra cost?
10why ev agency still not had there conditions answered
11how you going to talk all locals in to growing THERE hedge [ you lied in the planning conditions about this to get what you wanted ] i just wonder how many extra costs you will be genorating getting over the problems you failed to inform the meeting about

were all waiting for a resonce please

[iggy]

my self and others I'm sure would like to have a meeting with Mr sedden and Mr john Bibby [it is now his responsibility]and the chief ex about they way the the planning application has been handled ie what info given and what they were not told. i would welcome any help in setting up this meeting poss helen / llra/ wera or anybody else thanks

[tonyandcarol]

a simple thanks from Park Riding School to all who those who have put such an effort and their support into what is now a sad outcome.we are their to support you in any way as you have us.thank you.

[iggy]

thanks tony and carol
what is going to happen to the riding school now you have had time to think things over
has there been any contact from the council
i so so sorry we could not help the school

[iggy]

: JOHN.SHIPTON@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK; john.shipton@dwpgsi.gov.uk; john@twofish.plus.com
Subject:

leter sent to EA after recieving there email see next posting
also j thorpe has some very interesting figures i hope he posts and sends to EA

thank you for the copy of response to the planning application
myself and others in the area still have lots of concerns about the management of the surface water off this now approved site .i have listed some of concerns raised and hope the ea will look into them and report back to myself
1-- some of the surface water is going to discharge into the existing drainage system on long leys road .my comments on this is in the 4 years i have lived in the area the drainage systems foul and surface have blocked and flooded long leys road with raw toilet waste coming out of both systems manholes this happens approximately twice a year . the problem is so I'm told [ by the man who carried out a cammra servay for d wilson homes ] is as follows there are problems with connections made into the wrong systems on st georges/ Wilson's have constructed 3 french drains at the top of the site and piped it into the surface system [as houses flooded 3 or 4 a year from the springs and run off water of the hillside above. I'm also told the main pipe work on long leys is very old / layd almost flat /badly damaged by tree roots and generally in a very bad state .so my question is can it take the extra amount of water.
2-- the open water way [ditch]that they are going to put most of the water in i ask the following points
1--who owns it and maintains it because in the last 4 years nobody has
2-- when the field is piped into this ditch can it cope with the very large amount of extra water it will have to take
when the bypass was constructed a few years ago a large section of the ditch was piped and filled in ,so in fact the flow is now restricted is the diameter of the pipe the correct size to cope
4-- where does this ditch discharge in to as in a wet period this ditch floods every time into fields along its length [not nice onto food if there is a chance it my have all be it a very small amount of contamination from a grave yard
5-- as the water table is only 1 m in the field how will drain a 2m deep[grave depth ]french drain
as the above can it take the extra water also will it then become a running stream resulting in erosion of banks and road
it may also be worth looking at a copy of the planning meeting minutes for the above application held in june . as the senior planning officer stated the following points
[a] that once the water entered the ditch it was somebody's problem not there if it did not get away
[b] maintenance of the ditch was not there problem
[c] when asked what run off rates for the water he had used he stated green field rates . i ask if this is correct as up to 30% of the site is hard surface should other rates be used as there will be a lot more water running off this hillside

[iggy]

hope this address and phone no is some good to somebody

Dear Mr Clarkson,

Your enquiry has been logged onto our system I will seek advice from our flood risk engineers and respond accordingly.

Should you require anything in the meantime please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards

Laura Richardson
Planning Liaison Officer
01522 785938
LauraM.richardson@environment-agency.gov.uk

[iggy]

what do you think or does any body know facts about who owners it
1 does the stretch of ditch that starts at carram and disappears under ground just after the meeting building, ever have water in it and if yes does it flow or in fact just soak away
2 what happens to the ditch as it goes back towards Lincoln ie it looks to be piped out side Waterbury's site and looking at the width of grass verge it probably runs or used to back as far as Albion
3 why in the grass verge at the point that the ditch starts its journey under ground at the[ right hand side of bakers field ]is there a group of open gully lids that seem to be covering a very large water catchment tank ,
4 is it my eyes that has gone or infarct after 35 years of looking at levels on site i am missing something ie
if i said at the point were the pipe reverts back to being an open ditch possible 800 m or more down long leys towards the A 57 the bottom of the pipe is 1/2m below ground level the pipe will have a back fall on it as the ground level slopes from both ways towards the bridge, so infact does this i wonder say that all the water they discharge of this development will not go in the ditch but into this catchment tank
5 HELEN ONE FOR YOU IF YOU COULD ASK THE CORRECT PEOPLE AT COUNTY COUNCIL and CITY COUNCIL PLEASE
as stated at the planning meeting just before i left, by a senior member OF THE PLANNING DEPT i quote it is not are problem when the water is off are site
a--is this true
b-- do county know city is giving them this problem
c-- who does own this ditch or catchment pit
d-- who will maintain it
e-- will it cope with the extra water
f--do county not have to grant permission for this work
last but not least when will city satisfy E A conditions on this mater as they have had best part of 5 months to sort it out and as stated by the officer at the meeting it is not a problem JUST TAKING A LONG TIME

[john shipton]

Well done to Ian for his letter published in the Lincolnshire Echo today, 2nd July.

This is it...

LINCOLNSHIRE ECHO - 2nd July

Following on from a long battle to convince the council it had got it all wrong with the choice of location for the new Long Leys graveyard (June 13), I would like to share some points with residents of the city and surrounding area who will be using this new facility and say to you all 'we told you so' when it becomes unusable.

Don't forget this field was abandoned by the council in the 1960s as it was always waterlogged .

The site is subject to a serious problem with flood water (run-off from the upper field plus underground springs and a water table of one metre which does not sound to be okay with 2m graves).

The site is also under threat of thousands of tonnes of very unstable soil/stone in the fields the above it (i.e. evidence of major land slippage) but I cannot remember this being told to any councillors at the planning stage or walking around.

When the scheme was sold to us all at the public meeting it was going to be used for up to 70 years as Lincoln's main graveyard.

But after the plans were drawn up it emerged that in fact it would last for only 35 years now as the plans show up to 30 per cent of the site having hard landscaping on it, i.e. roads and car parking and three, yes three, memorial gardens in it all with ponds in them (safe for children, I hope).

Last, but not least, the riding school which has provided a very great service to the residents of the city for the last 40-plus years from this field will lose almost everything (buildings, water supply, teaching facilities).

I will add there are so many issues to go into (i.e. dangerous access, no buses, no cycle lanes, remoteness, only access allowed for by car to list a few). Let's hope they get it right and the costs in maintenance are not too large.

IAN CLARKSON St George's Park, Lincoln.

[iggy]

this has some interesting responses to some of the questions asked Long Leys Road, Lincoln‏
From: Richardson, Laura (LauraM.richardson@environment-agency.gov.uk)
Sent: 11 July 2008 16:21:11
To: ian clarkson (iggylin@hotmail.com); Tony Wilson (twilson@elsenorthern.co.uk)
Cc: Robinson, Mark (mark.a.robinson@environment-agency.gov.uk); Clifton, John (john.clifton@environment-agency.gov.uk)

Dear Mr Clarkson and Mr Wilson,

I refer to your e-mails dated the 25 and 26 of June 2008, please accept my apologies for the delay, but I wanted to ensure that I had dealt with all your concerns.

Planning
As you will note from our response to the Local Planning Authority on this application that although we have not specifically raised an objection to this development on surface water grounds we have requested that a condition be attached to any permission granted.

Without this recommended condition it would be the Environment Agency's position to object to the proposed development. If the condition is attached to the planning application as requested then this means that whether the site has planning permission or not it can not go ahead until the Local Planning Authority in consultation with ourselves are assured that surface water can be adequately managed.

The applicant will have to demonstrate that there will be no increased problems as a result of the development. If the applicant wants to discharge to the sewer we will be requesting evidence that there is capacity. Without capacity we will be requesting that improvements are made or alternatives are sought.

However, I am extremely grateful to you for bringing the extent of the issues to our attention. The details submitted are extremely useful to us and will be used when assessing any surface water scheme submitted. Please be reassured that we will only recommend discharge of the surface water condition when we have been convinced that it is completely adequate.

Existing problems
I note that you discuss several existing problems in this area in regards to the Surface Water Sewer. Anglian Water Services are responsible for maintenance of the sewerage system.

The Environment Agency's Environment Management Team have previously been made aware of the problems on this site from the Local Council and have been in communication with the Council and Anglian Water in regards to the issues. We now consider that the problem has been adequately addressed. For more details on this please contact John Clifton in our Environment Management Team (01522 785972) who dealt with the issue.

If you consider that there maintains a problem John would be more than happy to hear from you.

I also note that there are issues with the maintenance of the ditch, I have been in touch with our Development Control Team who have confirmed that maintenance of this ditch is not in our remit. The Environment Agency does not hold details in regards to who's responsibility it is. However, it is presumed that it will either be the responsibility of the Riparian owner of the Highways Authority if it is used for run-off from the road. Sorry I cant be more helpful in regards to this.

Please let me know if you have any further questions and I will do my best to answer them. Thank you again for raising your concerns with us.

Many Regards

Laura Richardson
Planning Liaison Officer
01522 785938

[iggy]

RE: Long Leys Road, Lincoln‏
From: ian clarkson (iggylin@hotmail.com)
Sent: 11 July 2008 20:25:43
To: Richardson, Laura (lauram.richardson@environment-agency.gov.uk)

thanks very interesting reading. as i have been a site manager [building]for 30 years i am working with levels every day and if im not mistaken the ditch looks to back fall both ways to the bridge not away from the site as lincoln cc say im told there is a pump station at the side bridge . does this surjest when planning said 90% of water to ditch 10%to main drain .i dont think the planning officer was telling the truth
will the pumps and drains cope
also i dont think it is you but who do you think would talk to me about land slide on hill above this development [WE ARE TALKING BIG AREAS AND MANY THOUSANDS TONS OF SOIL]

LETTER SENT TO LAURA

[delmar39]

Hi there re the conditions outlined in the cemetery proposals I'm slightly concerned that the 'higher fences' condition may result in unsightly fences around the perimeter of the site. The original plan was to put in place appropriate planting to screen out parts of the cemetery and I think if done properly this would be ok. Our property looks onto the site and if a high fence were erected it would take away the view we currently have (one reason for being there). I'm concerned that all those who fought against it (and don't live opposite the site) have pushed for something that isn't necessarily needed - one downside of having the site visit was the potential to grant such a condition. With screening and by allowing the hedges to grow (if that's what the people who are responsible for them) after a while the two things will naturally blend I'm sure, but as it stands there may be an unnatural fence erected. Does anyone know who I can approach about this for clarification?

[iggy]

the original brief for the site boundary as for the hedge to be cut at a uniform height of 1.5 [feb planning meeting notes] it was at this meeting that the council proposed to put a 1.5m fence in as well for the security of there site . at the june meeting this was altered to a 2m fence by the council [ when they realised they did not own the hedge ] to form a screen for locals and visiters to the grave yard and SECURITY OF THE SOTHERN BOUNDRY
if you check back to the feb meeting it states quote / many of the objections are from properties on vergo ,elton ,midia
who wanted a relitive low height of screen to the site except one who did not want anything at all [ i take it that is you]
so it is not people who quote----- do not live against the site . it is possible only you who does not want a fence
i will state to yourself as i have posted on this site before i am not anti grave yard just is it the correct site for it ] that is if you dig was at me

[delmar39]

Hi there this wasn't a dig at anyone inparticular especially yourself. Plus, it wasn't me who didn't want anything at all to screen out the southern boundary. I simply thought that the planting proposed from the outset would be enough. I guess it's a case of seeing how it looks when it's completed. I suppose my main point was that seeking certain conditions can actually make the situation worse. The point on the first post above is that once it was realised this was going through the only thing left to do was to seek conditions.......hence we get a higher fence. Small consulation for the proposal going ahead regardless. Again, apologies if you thought this was a dig at you - it wasn't, just a general post. The fear of the unknown makes everyone a little frustrated I suppose. All the best.

[GDStimson]

Hi all

The original plans as reviewed by the planning committee and city council already referred to a 1.5m fence although, as Ian says, this was to be hidden "their side" of a 1.5m hedge - which we now know they don't own or control.

Just to add to the confusion, the cemetery layout drawing submitted also had a 1.8m fence indicated on our boundary, although this was actually an error, and the written planning documentation correctly referred to a 1.5m fence. (I hold copies of the planning application on behalf of LLRA and also confirmed this with the planning office at the time).

I went to all the planning meetings and thought I was paying attention. I certainly heard some discussion about a higher fence, but somehow I missed anyone proposing an extra condition for a higher fence, and presumably this would have had to be been seconded and possibly voted on. In fact, when it was brought up here, I was convinced you were mistaken, however, I've checked with the planning office and it turns out you're right.

Condition 16 - Details of all boundary walls and fences, including materials and the provision of a fence to a height of 6 feet along the southern boundary, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the approved details shall be implemented before the development is first brought into use, and maintained on site.

Reason. In the interests of visual amenity, privacy and security and to ensure that the amenities of the area are not adversely affected by the proposed development.

Don't know how that passed me by because I thought they ran through all the conditions and I'm sure I'd have noticed. Does anyone who attended the last planning meeting have a firm recollection of what actually happened?

i have asked the planning office what type of fencing they might typically expect to be used in this situation (I thought they might have some idea, as they have to approve it), but they were unable to offer any indication. Anyone in the trade have any idea? My guess would be that spikey metal pallisade they've put round all the schools over the last few years, but what would I know.

Regards
Gary